User

Usurper's ability isn't compatible with the levers of balance that CDPR has implemented into this game. Namely, as the OP said, provision costs are factored into the equation when it comes to a leader's ABILITY - which is given a provisions value based on how said ability interacts with the board. Once Usurper disables his opponent's ability, his opponent's provision penalty is STILL BEING PAID, with no benefit, while Usurper's ability is also being paid but while receiving FULL BENEFIT of his provisions penalty. That is asymmetrical for sure, and I think some of you are mistaking asymmetry as being equal to interesting and dynamic, but when you look at the way provisions are being used to balance the abilities, it actually goes beyond healthy asymmetry and into the category of unfairness.

Now if this game had a sideboard where you could look at your opponent then change your deck to respond to him, it'd be a different story. You could react to Usurper by swapping out some cards but since you can't do that, running into a Usurper when you've created a deck that is designed to use your Leader's ability... is essentially like being ambushed on the highway. Yes, you knew there might be bandits on the road, but that doesn't mean that it's still right for some guy to take on this life of crime just because he thinks it's good for HIM. He certainly isn't picking Usurper thinking that his opponents are going to have more FUN playing against it.

So yeah, I caution card game players from justifiying effects like Usurper because card games are weird in that they are games of chance so logic and reason becomes a little bit fuzzy in this way. But I would say that Usurper is basically like MTG's blue color. NOT FUN AT ALL TO PLAY AGAINST. Not unbeatable. But dayum, who ENJOYS THE THRILL OF BEING COUNTERSPELLED over and over? Nobody. Let's not go that route in gwent.

Not to go down a rabbit hole, but MTG's blue is beloved by many players but I would argue that it's also the reason why millions of people stop playing after they try the game. It's like, "You mean I spent money on cards and hours learning how to play and building a deck and then this guy just stops me from using them?!? Fuck this game"

User

Nobody plays a leader thinking they are going to give their opponent a good time. Everyone plays a leader first of all to win. Then because its right up their alley so to speak, fits their playstyle, and because they like that leader. Even so, there arent that many usurpers out there. I myself played emhyr and switched to usurper as soom as i could because i thought hes cool. Played him for 2 days before getting Calveit simply because i like him more and his ability is great. And because usurper talks like hes got throat cancer.

User

Usurper's ability isn't compatible with the levers of balance that CDPR has implemented into this game. Namely, as the OP said, provision costs are factored into the equation when it comes to a leader's ABILITY - which is given a provisions value based on how said ability interacts with the board. Once Usurper disables his opponent's ability, his opponent's provision penalty is STILL BEING PAID, with no benefit, while Usurper's ability is also being paid but while receiving FULL BENEFIT of his provisions penalty. That is asymmetrical for sure, and I think some of you are mistaking asymmetry as being equal to interesting and dynamic, but when you look at the way provisions are being used to balance the abilities, it actually goes beyond healthy asymmetry and into the category of unfairness.

What is the provision value of a leader's ability? Eithne currently has the most provisions at 19. Let's say a hypothetical leader without any abilities would have 30 provisions. Eithne has 19 provisions, so her ability is worth 30 - 19 = 11 provisions. Arachas Queen has 12 provisions, so her ability is worth 30 - 12 = 18 provisions.
When Usurper removes Eithne's ability, she loses 11 provisions and is virtually at 19 - 11 = 8 provision points. This is 2 less than Usurper with 10.
When Usurper removes Arachas Queen's ability, she loses 18 provisions and is virtually at 12 - 18 = minus 6 provisions, 16 less than Usurper!

This shows with numbers that the impact of Usurper on Arachas Queen is much larger and also completely unbalanced. Usurper even has a slight advantage over Eithne with 2 provision points. It seems it has not been recognized that Usurper's ability works similar to Bekker's Dark Mirror.

Please correct me if I'm wrong with my calculations and chain of thought.

Completely true. I also have the mindset that if you play a game, you play to win. It is up to the devs to make sure that as many people as possible can enjoy it (good for business). I don't see Usurper helping with that.

User

What is the provision value of a leader's ability? Eithne currently has the most provisions at 19. Let's say a hypothetical leader without any abilities would have 30 provisions. Eithne has 19 provisions, so her ability is worth 30 - 19 = 11 provisions. Arachas Queen has 12 provisions, so her ability is worth 30 - 12 = 18 provisions.
When Usurper removes Eithne's ability, she loses 11 provisions and is virtually at 19 - 11 = 8 provision points. This is 2 less than Usurper with 10.
When Usurper removes Arachas Queen's ability, she loses 18 provisions and is virtually at 12 - 18 = minus 6 provisions, 16 less than Usurper!

User

User

I just played a game vs arachas queen as usurper, and sure enough i won R1, then i passed R2 and my opponent did too without playing anything. It's true that usurper vs arachas queen is just bad for business but its not the only game to have such unbalanced encounters. Hearthstone and Shadowverse have them too. And people complain, but people will always complain about something they dont like or find convenient, for that matter. I've had my fair share of encounters with usurpers, and i never found them to be overpowered, just annoying.

User

I said it on other similar threads, I don't necessary mind Usurper's ability in Gwent, what bothers me however is the lack of interaction with it.

There are few ways to play around leaders' abilities, if it's a one shot ability or a charge based one you can try to bleed it before the last round, if it spans throughout the three rounds, you can win the first one to jump over an entire round, if it's a cooldown ability you can try to make the last round as short as possible so your opponent doesn't get as much value from their ability, and even Arachas Queen which as a passive ability can be played around because the drones are most likely part of her strategy and can be killed.

Needless to say Usurper cannot be interacted with, and even though he isn't himself particularly strong, he's nonethless frustrating to play against because of this.

I'd rather have a "disable enemy leader" effect on a unit, let's say Letho of Gulet, which could be locked or killed, with the proper strength and provision balance it could be a great card, and would open Usurper to get a more compelling ability.

User

I just played a game vs arachas queen as usurper, and sure enough i won R1, then i passed R2 and my opponent did too without playing anything. It's true that usurper vs arachas queen is just bad for business but its not the only game to have such unbalanced encounters. Hearthstone and Shadowverse have them too. And people complain, but people will always complain about something they dont like or find convenient, for that matter. I've had my fair share of encounters with usurpers, and i never found them to be overpowered, just annoying.

Hearthstone is not a genuine effort at making a card game. Hearthstone is a genuine effort at making money. Their balance decisions are not about balance, they are about money. So it's not good practice to make comparisons with HS's design choices in terms of actual game design merits.

Shadowverses's problem is that the designers are waaaaaaaaaay too heavy handed when it comes to shaping the meta. I mean it's really not a card game either it's more like a fighting game. They literally craft every viable deck themselves - CARD for CARD - while leaving all the other cards as being basically useless. Another game where it isn't really helpful to compare their design choices.

I'd say Eternal, Krosmaga, Duelyst are better to mention Unfortunately none of them are doing very well atm. I think players actually get addicted to being abused by bad card games. You know if you keep getting mana screwed in magic you think ,"One more try!!!" Instead of, "This is a terrible mana mechanic. I'm out. " It's like the way that a nice girl gets addicted to an abusive boyfriend.

User

Can you explain why? Expressing the value of a leader ability in provision points seems to make sense, as CDPR does the same thing for balancing these leader abilities. And then this calculation works.

I think players actually get addicted to being abused by bad card games. You know if you keep getting mana screwed in magic you think ,"One more try!!!" Instead of, "This is a terrible mana mechanic. I'm out. " It's like the way that a nice girl gets addicted to an abusive boyfriend.

Interesting point there. It’s also the effect that RNG can have on people (gambling). Winning through RNG does not make me feel like I accomplished something. In addition it can be addictive, so I would like to see it as little as possible in any game.

Can you explain why? Expressing the value of a leader ability in provision points seems to make sense, as CDPR does the same thing for balancing these leader abilities. And then this calculation works.

Yes, it’s an estimation of the provision points for a leader without any ability, for the sake of allowing a calculation. Eithne currently gives the most at 19, so if she (or any other leader) wouldn’t have an ability at all I estimated she would give 30. If the devs would have treated leaders the same way as cards (leaders costing provisions instead of giving provisions), this would have been a lot easier to calculate balance.

User

I don't play Usurper but it does strike me as odd that some people here think that they're going to be able to play their deck the way they want each and every time. There is interactivity/disruption in card games; it pushes you to think a little differently based on the match up instead of it being a linear process ad nauseam.

"The game should be played on the board" comes off as narrow minded. Options such as discard or milling add another dimension to the game thus more variety and more archetypes. Advocating the removal of such strategies is limiting the game in terms of creativity.

CDPR should keep the Prison archetype with Usurper and expand upon it just as they would do with the other archetypes/strategies. And if it really gets under your skin, then I don't think card games are for you.

User

I don't play Usurper but it does strike me as odd that some people here think that they're going to be able to play their deck the way they want each and every time. There is interactivity/disruption in card games; it pushes you to think a little differently based on the match up instead of it being a linear process ad nauseam.

"The game should be played on the board" comes off as narrow minded. Options such as discard or milling add another dimension to the game thus more variety and more archetypes. Advocating the removal of such strategies is limiting the game in terms of creativity.

I'm assuming you mean discarding cards from the opponent deck here. Again, it's not an issue with disrupting an opponent deck. It's how it disrupts them. Cards like VW and Traheaern aren't what I'd consider "skill cards". There is some element of player proficiency involved with the latter of the two. Case and point, playing it after an opponent thins the deck. Yet still, too often someone blindly plays it as their opening card, RNG goes their way and they kick one of the most important cards in the opponent deck. Likewise, VW is all about getting a lucky break.

Controlling, or disrupting, an opponent deck should have a basis in knowing the cards, factions, leaders and correctly identifying what the opponent is doing. It should not happen for you because you get lucky.

Other dimensions to the game are a good thing. I'd prefer those dimensions be something other than getting a huge benefit for getting lucky.

User

I don't play Usurper but it does strike me as odd that some people here think that they're going to be able to play their deck the way they want each and every time. There is interactivity/disruption in card games; it pushes you to think a little differently based on the match up instead of it being a linear process ad nauseam.

"The game should be played on the board" comes off as narrow minded. Options such as discard or milling add another dimension to the game thus more variety and more archetypes. Advocating the removal of such strategies is limiting the game in terms of creativity.

CDPR should keep the Prison archetype with Usurper and expand upon it just as they would do with the other archetypes/strategies. And if it really gets under your skin, then I don't think card games are for you.

Options like discard, mill, and counter spells have NEVER BEEN balanced. In any card game. Ever. Just because magic gets away with it doesn't mean everyone else needs to plunge themselves down that bottomless void where the scummiest minded player feels enjoyment at the second scummiest's expense.

And also, anecdotally, I find that many blue players in magic play blue because they hate playing against blue. They hate being counter spelled so they defend themselves with counter spells of their own. That's just in my experience because people say play a deck you despise so you can understand it better. So I made a counter spell deck online to get a feel for it. nd I've never seen people rage quit as quickly as my blue opponents sometimes do once they get counter spelled in that game. You counter their first thing and they just throw in the towel.

Bounce effects, counter spells, discard, mill, it's never been balance in any of these games. That's why they release such ridiculous rush cards in magic because they have to be so ridiculous in order to enforce the illusion that bounce, counters and other things are under control and not giving one player way too much decision making ability over the outcome of a game.

There is interactivity/disruption in card games; it pushes you to think a little differently based on the match up instead of it being a linear process ad nauseam.

"The game should be played on the board" comes off as narrow minded. Options such as discard or milling add another dimension to the game thus more variety and more archetypes. Advocating the removal of such strategies is limiting the game in terms of creativity.

We're talking specific mechanics here and a proposal of ground rules to give the game a clear vision and identity. An anything-goes-for-the-sake-of-diversity mentality does not work well, as other card games have apparently shown. Nobody will be saying to make soccer more diverse by letting players use their hands, or also allow hockey sticks and mountain bikes (for one team!) for even more diversity. Again, some ground rules are needed for vision and identity.

Edit, Add: Going back to Usurper, it is objectively clear that it is impossible to properly balance his current ability, never mind how people feel about him. That should be reason enough to change or remove Usurper.

User

Well, I never played Ursurper but actually I don't mind having him in the game. It sort of fits the overall Nilfgaard theme of betrayal, subterfuge and being "mean". If anything, I am even more motivated when playing against that son of a ... nice woman.

Maybe it is just me, but I don't want to play a game where I have an autopilot strategy set in stone that can be executed by a monkey. A disruptor like Ursurper forces me to think of other solutions and find creative ways to play around him. Given the low provisions, he is surely not overpowered I think.

However, one suggestion: He should only disable active capabilities! That way, poor Arachas Queen would still work just fine. That little bug has a hard life as it stands anyway ... would also spice up things a bit!

User

Well, I never played Ursurper but actually I don't mind having him in the game. It sort of fits the overall Nilfgaard theme of betrayal, subterfuge and being "mean". If anything, I am even more motivated when playing against that son of a ... nice woman.

Sure, you may be more motivated, but unfortunately your leader is disabled and several of your cards are less powerful because of that. In addition, some Viper Witchers, Traheaern and Tibor just removed your last hope from your deck through RNG. So literally, the only thing left you can do is calling him a son of a ... and forfeit. Fun. Fortunately there is no shame in losing to such a skilled and tactically superior opponent.

Maybe it is just me, but I don't want to play a game where I have an autopilot strategy set in stone that can be executed by a monkey. A disruptor like Ursurper forces me to think of other solutions and find creative ways to play around him. Given the low provisions, he is surely not overpowered I think.

However, one suggestion: He should only disable active capabilities! That way, poor Arachas Queen would still work just fine. That little bug has a hard life as it stands anyway ... would also spice up things a bit!

The wording was misleading. If ursurper disables my Brouver I change my mulligans for instance. I may even mulligan Schirru in search of Sasenthessis or so since I cant setup my win condition and try to do something else. Of course that doesn't always work. AQ is a special case. Even if usurper would disappear altogether she would struggle due to low provisions and missing support cards. Are Foltest/Demavend unplayable against ursurper? Honest question! I have limited NR experience and don't know how heavily their decks rely on leader capabilities.

Viper Witchers, Tibor and so on are a different matter and not related to usurper per se. They should be changed I think (e.g. VW only discard bronze cards for instance, Tibor should do something else).

I am only offering an opionion here. I am not a fan of usurper. I wouldn't mind if he gets changed/removed or whatever. But he is not OP I think. If he would be, he would dominate the meta. He is also not neccesarily fun to play against. But he is also not a dealbreaker for me.